1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of the orders of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, dated 15-12-2010 in I.A. Nos.451 and 452 of 2010.

2. Revision petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.219 of 2008 without naming any defendant and suing ‘all concerned’ as defendants to declare them as the legal heirs of late Pathlavath Rashya and Pathlavath Bhimji claiming to be the sons of Bhimji. They claimed Rashya to have been granted a certificate of ownership under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of Ac.28.27 guntas of Kondakal village, Shankarapally Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District. Bhimji and Humla are claimed to be the sons of Rashya who died on 18-09-1989 intestate and Humla is stated to have died a bachelor, while Bhimji died on 02-09-1998. On the advice of Tahsildar, Shankarapally to obtain a succession certificate from a competent Court, revision petitioners 1 and 2 claimed to have filed the suit.

3. The suit was disposed of by the judgment of the trial Court on 06-04-2009, in which it referred to ordering a paper publication in Eenadu (Telugu) district edition of Mahabubnagar, dated 31-12-2008 calling for objections from ‘all concerned’ and receiving no objections from any quarter. The trial Court received the affidavit of the 2nd plaintiff in lieu of his chief-examination and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it considered the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and the entitlement of revision petitioners 1 and 2 herein to be declared as the legal heirs of Rashya and Bhimji. Relying on Madanamma v. Singareni Collieries 1995(3) ALT 106,the trial Court felt the suit to be maintainable and it also referred to Syed Sadak Ali Khan others v. M/s. Deepthi Builders and others 2007(6) ALT 4for concluding that the residence of the plaintiffs at Shadnagar makes them entitled to present the suit before the trial Court. Referring to the death certificates of Rashya and Bhimji in Exs.A.1 and A.2, the ration cards of the plaintiffs in Exs.A.4 and A.5 and the reference therein to the plaintiffs being the sons of Bhimji, the trial Court considered that it was categorically established that the plaintiffs and Pathlavath Rupli, wife of Bhimji, if alive, are to be declared as the legal heirs of Bhimji.

4. The petitioners in I.A. Nos.451 and 452 of 2010 approached the Court to set aside the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 06-04-2009 along with the petitions for condonation of delay in filing the same and the trial Court condoned the delay respectively as per the orders in I.A. Nos.102 and 372 of 2010 on 19-10-2010. Thereafter, after dismissing I.A. No.371 of 2010 by the plaintiffs under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice for permission to be represented by a general power of attorney holder, by orders dated 15-12-2010, the trial Court considered I.A. Nos.451 and 452 of 2010 and passed the impugned orders setting aside the ex parte decree and posting the suit further to check the impleading petitions filed by the petitioners therein, in the main suit.

5. The dismissal of I.A. No.371 of 2010 was on the ground that the general power of attorney holder L. Jaya Reddy was not given any authority under the said document styled as an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney with possession, dated 09-07-2008, to represent the plaintiffs in any Courtof law or to prosecute any legal proceedings. The power of attorney was construed to be dealing with only transfer of property and hence, the request for permission under Rule 32(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice was negatived.

6. However in condoning the delay in filing I.A. Nos.451 and 452 of 2010 by orders in I.A. Nos.102 and 372 of 2010 on 19-10-2010, the trial Court noted that the petitioners in both the applications are setting up rival claims independently in respect of the same subject matter and that Courts should n